Hobby Lobby
  • Yvette Clarke weighs in on it: "“If the U.S. Supreme Court does not uphold the Affordable Care Act’s birth control protections, millions of women could find themselves without access to critically important health services just because such services personally offend their bosses."

    image
    Members of Brooklyn’s congressional delegation were watching the U.S. Supreme Court arguments over employer-funded contraception for women with great interest on Tuesday and two of the delegation’s female members spoke out on the controversy.
  • Yvette Clarke... Umm... Not the sharpest tool... http://youtu.be/zIcHWlU4wHo

  • oh man... that is unfortunate.
  • The article in the Eagle states 99% of women have used birth control in the past. I'll bet that their medical insurance if they even had any didn't pay for it. So now that it's mandated the employer has to pay for it. Doesn't seem fair to me. If women want it, hell, let the guy their hooking up with pay for it. Otherwise he'll be paying for at least 18 years. Seems a much less expensive way to go in my opinion.
  • Pragmatic Guy, why should men pay for women's contraceptives?  Isn't that sexist and condescending, like suggesting that men should pay all expenses of any date?

    Yes, I understand the point about avoiding child support payments... but that begs the question of why women should not pay for their own contraceptives.
  • Plenty of Health Insurance companies paid for certain birth control.  It seems that Hobby Lobby is particularly bent out of shape about the IUD and Plan B arguing that as they prevent implantation in the uterus.  In their fundy minds this equates these medicines and medical procedures with an abortion.  They have no problem with paying for vasectomies though, and insurance has never had a problem with that procedure either.  

    Also, women with no insurance or insurance who didn't cover their birth control often turned to Planned Parenthood and other title X clinics.  As more and more laws come down in order to shut down these clinics such as requiring hallways be a certain width that would mean completely re-habbing entire buildings, these options are disappearing fast.

    If Hobby Lobby and other uber-religious f*&%$rs had to actually pay more for women's birth control in insurance there might be a hint of a reason to blink.  They are not specifically paying for it, and they haven't brought up all the penis pumps and viagra that do get covered.  Hobby Lobby is also a for profit company.  If the Green family members are opposed to taking BC they should not take it.  I simply don't see any logical reason they don't want a cashier to not get her medical care paid for as an inclusive part of her total body health. 
  • @Booklaw....I'm old school, the only time I asked a woman to pay for any expenses on a date was waaaaay back when I was 19 and was getting $30 a week on unemployment. I still had to drive 18 miles to her house to pick her up and I paid for the movie and she paid when we went out for a bite afterward. At the time I had toast and coffee so I think my part of the bill came out to about 60 cents. And you're right...women should pay for their own contraceptives. Problem is, now the insurance companies are having to pay. If they don't have to pay for cosmetic surgery maybe they shouldn't have to pay for something that's elective as well.
  • If the insurers don't pay for contraceptives, they will likely find themselves forced to pay for prenatal care, obstetricians, anesthesiologists, pediatric care, etc. etc.  Contraceptives are cheap by comparison.
  • I think putting them in the water supply, like fluoride, goes too far in preventing these costs.
  • Then I guess that insurers should pay for elective abortions as well.
  • I find myself in a rare position. Today, I agree with Mother Jones.

    http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/best-lines-hobby-lobby-decision

  • I wonder if Chick-Fil-A is breathing a sigh of relief seeing as how the owners of that company are also Christian and yet they didn't get involved. They had others battle it out and now they're eligible for the same kind of benefits.
  • Thankfully, birth control is not that expensive. If it was expensive, I would be worried about huge numbers of companies finding religion in order to not offer it.

    This should also shut up those who claim we don't have separation of church and state. For better or worse, today's decision demonstrates we clearly have it.
  • whynot_31 said:

    Thankfully, birth control is not that expensive. If it was expensive, I would be worried about huge numbers of companies finding religion in order to not offer it.  



    Prices of BC pills vary depending on whether one opts for a brand-name (e.g. Clyclessa) or for a generic (e.g. Cesia). It also depends on your insurance plan (buying a three-month supply of pills at a time is cheaper under some plans rather than buying a one-month supply at a time).

    This may prompt more women to turn to Planned Parenthood. The city Planned Parenthood locations are crowded enough as it is.
  • Expensive is relative.

    I was thinking in terms of relative to the cost of covering behavioral health care (mental health, substance abuse, and relative to the political cost of not covering it.

    Despite now being allowed, I remain optimistic that most privately held "family companies with religious values" will find that dropping coverage for birth control is more hassle than it is worth.
  • Which is probably why many draftees found it easier to go to war than to say they were conscientious objectors and get a job in the PX.
  • Yes, Many of us would find such beliefs if they provided us benefits without costs.

    The onus is now on those who care about employer provided birth control; They must make it very expensive for a provider to forego.